Al Giordano at The Field has a long, detailed, fascinating piece on generational demographics and its effect on American politics — “I Have Seen the Future of US Politics & Its Name is Prop 19“:
… SUSA titles its analysis, “Some Evidence That California’s Marijuana Tail is Wagging Barbara Boxer’s Dog; Voters Without Home Phones, Voters Focused on Decriminalization, May Tip Senate.” In sum, the pollsters have identified the key factor in Boxer’s contest vs. Republican Carly Fiorina, who leads narrowly with 46 percent over 44 percent for the incumbent. By looking separately at voters who only use cell phones, those who have both cell and home phones, and those only with home telephones, SUSA has found significant differences in the voting intentions of the cell phone-only citizens and the rest. It is no secret to young people (of all ages) who use cell phones exclusively that they are culturally distinct from land liners in ways that extend beyond hardware preferences.
__
Nomadic, and on the move, more reliant on the Internet than the television for their news intake, they’re the future of the United States. And they’re also a lot more multi-racial – and more actively defy societal apartheids – than the rest of the population. OMG! Wait… wait… see that little light bulb popping on over our heads? By Jove, I think we get it! Those are the 2008 first time Obama voters, duh! And getting them to vote in the midterm elections is the biggest headache that the White House and the Democratic party has right now leading up to November 2…
__
Interestingly enough, Boxer opposes Proposition 19. So does former and future Governor Jerry Brown… And when I see Attorney General Eric Holder and drug czar Gil Kerlikowske embarrass themselves with anti-Prop 19 posturing – given that the data shows that highly motivated Prop 19 supporters are the Democrats’ only ace left to save the California senate seat, and what that implies for the rest of the country in 2012 – I have to wonder aloud whether this is the usual fear-motivated political posturing on the part of these Democrats or a more calculated strategy to hope Prop 19 loses narrowly in order to have it on the ballot again two years from now and bring the new “swing voter” back to the ballot box again. If that is the hidden agenda, it is a risky one, not one that I would recommend, because if Prop 19 goes down this year there are going to be a lot of pissed off reform votes out there, some of whom remember when the words “tea party” had other connotations…
__
The best case scenario for Democrats, however, is not that Prop 19 loses and comes up again in California in 2012, but to the contrary: If the historic Proposition 19 passes, the pundits and talking heads that generate the misnamed “conventional wisdom” in the Washington DC beltway will be falling all over each other to note that Prop 19 won and it pulled Boxer out of the fire with it. If coming out of Election Night, Prop 19 emerges with the sheen of a newly-minted winner, Democratic strategists will have little choice but to adopt a “50 state strategy” (especially in the 26 states – Maine, Massachusetts, and virtually everything west of the Mississippi River – that have citizen generated statewide ballot initiative processes), and go “all in” on legalizing, regulating and taxing marijuana, even if their politicians continue to balk at saying it aloud. And if you’re a Democratic (or Republican) politician that doesn’t yet see the writing on the wall, remember how most of you were wrong (or late) in your predictions two and three years ago, and that “Yes, We Can” means “Yes, We Cannabis,” too.
Go read the whole thing before you start arguing about the details — there’s a lot of solid numbers and information that I can’t do justice in a teaser here. I don’t have the background to judge whether Giordano is right about the Democrats’ possible Sekrit Plan, but he’s got an excellent record when it comes to predicting specific contests, largely because he’s been good about parsing the numbers rather than finger-to-the-winding Conventional Wisdom.
Just Some Fuckhead
Yeah, it’s a nice counter to saving the fetuses and hating on the gay. Though, it would be nice if Democrats embraced the one issue like Republicans embrace the other two.
BR
A few days back I called the White House comment line and shouted at them about DoJ priorities – that they’re putting their effort into keeping gays out of the military and threatening to go after pot smokers in CA if the proposition passes when they should be going after Wall Street, which two years after the beginning of the financial crisis hasn’t seen any banks taken down for fraud.
Maybe they need to hear from more folks. And if the proposition passes I will be calling Feinstein’s office daily reminding her that the voters have spoken and she needs to put away her bias and stand up for what Californians have decided on (that is, stand up for CA against the DoJ / others in congress).
BGinCHI
I bet Karl Rove wishes he’d have thought of that first.
This is where College Republicans, who went to shitty parties and don’t know much about drugs (despite what they may think), are at a huge disadvantage.
Zifnab
If Prop 19 passes, I almost want to say that the whole California Ballot Initiative thing will have been worth it. Finally bucking the “marijuana is a political loser” myth will be good for the country in so many ways.
Calouste
Survey USA has Boxer 46, Mrs. HP-destroyer 44. There’s only one poll in the last 6 weeks that had Mrs. Cook-the-books-at-Lucent in the lead.
Maybe Al should leave the weed until after he has finished writing and reviewing his articles.
Martin
@Zifnab: Let’s not get carried away. On the very same ballot are enough initiatives with the potential to make people in the state forget all about a Prop 19 win.
Its a funny thing. California voters seem very capable of recognizing ballot initiatives that have the potential to transform the federal narrative, but they’re completely incapable of recognizing those that are going to totally fuck up the state.
lamh32
Okay,
I guess I’m a bit of a square, cause I just don’t understand all the fuss and love that marijuana gets from people.
I have no particualar aversion to pot smokers except that like cigarette smokers, the smell tends to linger on you even if you are not the one actually smoking it, and the “contact high” I can do without.
I’ve been around smokers, all of my life. One of my earliest weed related memories I share with my sisters and I all have these memories fo my dad going into one of the bedrooms and smoking weed. Heck, we even remember the seeds that he left that could be seen on his Rick James “Super Freak” LP (he had an extensive vinyl collection, but for some reason Rick James was his “album du jour” when it came to rolling one up. To this day though, he denies it vehemently…it’s kinda funny when he does it.
But, I know alot of people feel really strongly about it, so it’s an interesting reading if nothing else.
beltane
As important as the legalization issue is to younger voters (and it is more important to them than older people may suspect) it also points to some larger issues that do not work in the Republicans’ favor. From what I have observed in younger family members and their friends, it would appear that GOP talking points in general do not resonate very well with this group. The old buzzwords and scare tactics don’t seem to work on them, and they just appear to be a lot less mean than us Gen-Xers. Time will tell.
beltane
@Zifnab: It would also be a sweet, posthumous revenge on St. Ronnie and his expensive, inhumane war on drugs.
BR
@Calouste:
How original. Anyway, he doesn’t smoke weed – just cigarettes.
beltane
@lamh32: People feel strongly about it because they tend to resent the fact that they could be sent to jail and have their life utterly ruined for partaking in an activity that is arguably less harmful than doing a shot of vodka.
John O
@lamh32:
C’mon. That was supposed to be funny, right?
;-)
Where are the people around you getting stoned? A ginormous sensory deprivation tank?
And your big complaint is about the odor it leaves? I can think of plenty of semi-rational reasons to oppose the initiative, but stank in the olfactory sense ain’t one of ’em.
Just Some Fuckhead
@John O:
If that was a criteria for anything, pets would be verbotten.
John O
@beltane:
Right on. I would say a lot of people resent The Stupid where the policy is concerned, and the complete ignorance of recent history with alcohol prohibition’s lessons. The People, at least enough of them (and the right kind!), have spoken with their feet and wallets.
BR
I think Al is right about almost everything here except one thing – that this would be a good proposition to put on the ballot across the country. We’d have to pick the states very carefully based upon demographics, because we don’t want to motivate anti-cannabis voters.
For 2012 I’d recommend most of the West (Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico) except for Utah, some of the midwest (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois), and the Mid-Atlantic and New England (Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, Delaware, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine) with the exceptions of West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
Anton Sirius
I’m still baffled as to how long it’s taking the Dems to recognize the value of ballot initiatives in GOTV efforts.
Pro-legalization props should have been a no-brainer strategy for getting the first-time Obama voters back out to the polls in the midterms. As Rove and the Pubs have demonstrated repeatedly, the point is never to have the prop actually pass, but simply to rile people up about it enough to get them to the polls.
Oscar Leroy
Democrats don’t do secret plans. If the Obama DoJ is going to continue prosecuting people for having marijuana, it’s because they think people should be prosecuted for having marijuana. Just like if Obama’s DoJ appeals the overturn of DADT, it’s really not all that interested in overturning DADT. Presidents don’t have to craft elaborate, multi-state years-long plans to do things they could do with a couple strokes of the pen.
Paula
Not entirely OT, but teh Google has a buncha articles telling me that Obama is trying to rally not only the Blacks and the Young People, but also the Women. Oh the audacity!!
MikeJ
@Paula: And the DC subway giveaway rag ran the hed “Obama snubs white men.”
Just Some Fuckhead
@Paula:
That’s about the only thing that is going to save his ass. Nothing like waiting til the last minute.
Paula
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Fuckhead, do you get paid to post here?
Oh right, for “the giggles” right?
WyldPirate
@beltane:
Fixed for accuracy. One cannot die from partaking of too much ganja because of the pharmacological effects. Vodka is a different story. (and I know you specified as single shot)
Oscar Leroy
He’s above partisanship, don’t you know.
Bill White
Couldn’t this be called a grass-roots movement?
WyldPirate
Speaking of legalization. Check out the YouTube video at the link..
“”Should Be Legalized” Eminem – Love The Way You Lie Parody”
Even if you don’t agree with the topic, the youngsters in it are gorgeous. ;)
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal
One problem with the piece is that Eric Holder didn’t exactly embarrass himself with anti-Prop 19 rhetoric. I’d argue that it was pretty much the opposite: he said just about the minimum required of the attorney general.
Like it or not, folks, marijuana is illegal as a matter of federal law. Holder’s job is to enforce that law. And that’s pretty much what he said. Reading between the lines, he actually said that the feds aren’t going to go out of their way to disrupt this: they’ll pretty much enforce like they have been.
It’s a lot like DADT. Kevin Drum had some interesting thoughts on that question today. In addition to mentioning what I keep doing, namely that DADT is a matter of federal law and it’s Obama’s job to enforce it whether he likes it or not, Drum points out that Obama probably had to cut a deal with the military brass that they could control much of the implementation of a DADT repeal, and he’d be going back on that deal if he didn’t appeal.
beergoggles
Pinning hopes on potheads turning up to the polls.. when they get around to it..
Really?
WaterGirl
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal:
Absolutely! I have been thinking this for days and wondering why people weren’t discussing this.
WyldPirate
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal:
In case you haven’t noticed, that’s the whole point. The Drug War is lost. It has been for years. It’s a multibillion dollar waste.
Fuck Holder–let him try to enforce it. He doesn’t have the manpower.
They don’t want to win the “war” anyway. It would put too many cops, lawyers, judges, prison guards and their ilk out of business. Besides, they couldn’t keep enough young dark-skinned males in MeriKKKa imprisoned without the “War on Drugs”. And it’s proving handy in causing chaos and killing innocent Mexicans as well.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal
@WyldPirate: Fine and dandy. I agree with a lot of what you just said. However, it is not Eric Holder’s job (or Barack Obama’s) to simply decide to stop enforcing the law.
Get Congress to do its fucking job.
WyldPirate
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal:
Sorry I seemed to be jumping on you. I didn’t read your post closely enough the first time.
Regarding this specific issue, there are a lot of old alcohol-besotted fuckwits in the Congress that have to die off first. That’s going to take a while, too.
What i don’t get–and cannot get for the life of me–is that they can ignore all of the research–and the fact that the one of the active ingredients of cannibis is sold as a prescription drug Dronabinol—and they still have it classified as a Schedule I drug with no medicinal value. And they ignore the fact and recommendations of all the commisioned studies on its effects that say it is less harmful and that the criminalization of Cannabis does far more harm than the drug even begins to do.
It’s like our government lives down the rabbit hole regarding this subject just like the TeaTards do with global warming, etc.
The stupid just burns too much sometimes…..
ornery curmudgeon
@WyldPirate: The stupid just burns too much sometimes…..
Not so much stupid as self-oriented. But yeah, it does.
Resident Firebagger
While I seriously doubt that Democrats are clever enough to try and pull off what Giordano is suggesting, it is interesting to extend this premise to other legislation:
Mike G
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal:
Unless it applies to torture, warrantless wiretapping, war crimes and treason by the previous Repig administration. In which case it’s all about politics, “comity”, bipartisanship and “moving forward, not looking back”. Gutless wonders.
Thomas
This issue is exhibit A for illustrating the point that our policy isn’t driven by data. If it were, marijuana would have been legalized in the 70s if not before. All the data indicates cannabis is less harmful than alcohol. If the powers that be are going to offshore all the decent jobs, make higher education inaccessible without taking on the crushing burden of non-dischargeable student loan debt, and develop crappy financial products to sink home values, the least they could do is let people go home and enjoy a nice spliff to take their minds off their shitty lives. But no, we can’t even do that without fear for our freedom from confinement and financial wherewithall.
Enough’s enough, end prohibition. The time has come.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Mike G: You pie in the sky liberal purist firebagging PUMA Greenwaldian Hamsherites expect Obama to be smart enough to see the War on Marijuana is stupid.
But he’s smarter than that.
Chris
“the Democrats’ possible Sekrit Plan”
Oh, that’s funny. Democrats only *have* “secret” plans, because any non-secret plan of Democrats is, by definition, known of by other Democrats, some of whom will inevitably sabotage it to score points with Republicans, some of whom will inevitably bitch about its inadequacies to the media (because *their* ideas weren’t followed to the letter), and some of whom won’t be able to resist screwing with it because, well, come on, it was *Democrats* who came up with the plan, so how good could it be?
Bobby Thomson
Drug legalization and Western Hemisphere foreign policy are the only issues where Al has been at all objective regarding the Obama administration. I see a tremendous amount of wishful thinking in his forecasts that “Legalize It” will have any traction outside of the West Coast and pockets of the Northeast.
For that matter, Al’s “track record” stems from the fact that he was one of the few journalists during the 2008 primary season who could count.
MBunge
Just because no one has mentioned it, the latest poll on prop 19 has 51% opposed and 38% supporting. Yeah, that’s sounds like a political winner to me.
Mike
Cris
@MBunge: Very relevant, but that’s one poll: Nate Silver’s composite has it a lot closer.
Looks like we’re not going to know how this turns out until it, well, turns out.
MBunge
@Cris: Fair enough, but dopers need the take the next step in their political arguments for legalization. We’ve mostly moved beyond the “hemp!” and medicine BS and are getting honest about the fact that legalization is all about smoking. Now dopers need to grapple with the fact that just because everybody they know smokes, that doesn’t mean EVERYBODY smokes.
Mike
Bill in OH
@MBunge: “Now dopers need to grapple with the fact that just because everybody they know smokes, that doesn’t mean EVERYBODY smokes.”
So what? I don’t have to smoke marijuana to know that it’s far less harmful than alcohol and that too many people’s lives have been destroyed for the crime of smoking a joint. I don’t have to smoke it to come to the conclusion that some extra revenue in a tax-strapped state is probably a good thing. I don’t approve of people getting shit faced and getting into fights in the street, but I’m not looking to ban alcohol.
I assume, since you’re using the term “dopers” that you don’t approve of it. Fine. But seriously, is it really that hard to see that there is no rational reason for pot to remain illegal?